The High Court dismissed Donall “Happy” Murray’s claims against a Garda sergeant, Ireland and the Attorney General, ruling that his defamation claims were bound to fail. It also rejected a request to require Murray to obtain court permission before bringing further proceedings against the defendants and their staff or agents.
In a judgment delivered on 27 June 2013, Ms Justice Iseult O’Malley found that statements allegedly made in court proceedings were covered by absolute privilege. That protection applied to relevant words spoken in court by parties and representatives, as well as witnesses, and could not be displaced by malice. The judge also held that handing a document to a witness in court did not amount to publication of it by the person who supplied it.
Murray’s 2012 action concerned alleged conduct by the first defendant, a Garda sergeant, including statements about Murray’s medical qualifications and an internal Garda memorandum which described him as “clearly a fraud”. Murray said the memorandum was circulated within the Garda force and was later produced in court. He also complained of alleged defamatory statements in the District Court in 2001 and during a High Court hearing in 2010.
The judge rejected the defendants’ argument that the current claims repeated matters already determined in earlier litigation. She noted that the claim over the seizure of Murray’s ambulance had been dismissed after a hearing on its merits, but found that the new statement of claim did not seek to relitigate that issue.
The defamation claims nevertheless could not proceed. The court held that the claim concerning words spoken in the District Court in 2001 was statute-barred. For the memorandum, even if it had been published earlier, the relevant 2009 Act did not provide for an extension on the facts. Murray knew it had been produced in court in March or April 2010, but did not issue his summons until October 2012. The judge concluded the defence based on limitation would succeed.
O’Malley J. also found that Murray had not shown a basis for his other claims, which included injurious falsehood, misfeasance in public office, breach of duty and infringement of constitutional rights. She refused the defendants’ separate application to bar future proceedings without leave, noting that no specific argument had been made on that request.